So what do you think? Is my characterization reasonable/unreasonable,
am I missing something, ... or ...?
Any other opinions?
-miles
--
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.' [NYT]
largh_a_SOURCES = blargh/file1.c blargh/file1.c..."
Not a huge deal for very small libraries, but decidedly bloated if
there are 50 files in a library. This hold for pretty much every rule...
[If one has access to newer versions of automake, one can write e.g.
"%D%/file1.c" in
Hi Miles.
On 08/29/2013 06:02 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
I would also argue for just using non-recursive automake, but it might be
the least of your problems for now.
"Just" is probably not the right term, as it generally seems to
require more work to make a good non-r
ake >= 1.14 (or even 1.13, in case that doesn't suffer
of the issue you are seeing in 1.11). Automake is easy and
quick to install, and has few dependencies.
I'd suggest you go with option (2), as developing with two versions
of automake that have been release four years
Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
> I would also argue for just using non-recursive automake, but it might be
> the least of your problems for now.
"Just" is probably not the right term, as it generally seems to
require more work to make a good non-recursive build setup with
automake, even if it's funct
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Shawn Webb wrote:
> clamd_SOURCES = \
This is just a guess because I can't look at your repositories right now,
but I would suggest bringing the declaration of clamd_SOURCES *outside* the
conditional, that might fix the make distclean.
I would also argue for ju
Hey All,
I'm working on ClamAV and am restructuring our autoconf/automake
scripts to be a bit more organized and modernized. On one machine, I
have automake 1.14 installed.. On another, much older machine, I have
automake 1.11.1 installed.
Quick history of why I'm emailing: ClamAV's codebase has
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> On 07/22/2013 04:18 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > For reasons I have no forgotten, our software requires automake-1.10 or
> > later to build.
> >
> > I do our builds with 1.11.1 right now, and I have the vague memory that
> > there w
On 07/22/2013 04:18 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> For reasons I have no forgotten, our software requires automake-1.10 or
> later to build.
>
> I do our builds with 1.11.1 right now, and I have the vague memory that
> there were issues with older versions of automake that meant tha
For reasons I have no forgotten, our software requires automake-1.10 or
later to build.
I do our builds with 1.11.1 right now, and I have the vague memory that
there were issues with older versions of automake that meant that while
*some* folks could use 1.10 or 1.11 for their builds, I recall
> (Answering only for Automake, because I've also been confused by
> Akim's last statements about announcements that shouldn't be
> considered official.)
Sorry about this. I was trying to make a difference bw pre-released
on my web site, and really released on GNU site. Maybe that was wrong
> Anyway, back to Dalibor's question:
> 2.57 is the last version announced to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2.58 is the last version available on ftp.gnu.org
> 2.59 is the last version (pre-)announced to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Which one is to be considered the last official release? I
> understa
>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Akim> Unfortunately it relied on this obscurity: it is
Akim> important, if you want some real feedback, that many
Akim> people use it as a real release. So if I flag it as a
Akim> pre-release, I doubt it will be tested as thorough
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
(Answering only for Automake, because I've also been confused by
Akim's last statements about announcements that shouldn't be
considered official.)
"Dalibor" == Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Dalibor> Can I build automake 1.7.9 (if that's officially
(Answering only for Automake, because I've also been confused by
Akim's last statements about announcements that shouldn't be
considered official.)
>>> "Dalibor" == Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Dalibor> Can I build automake 1.7.9 (if that's officially the
Dalibor> latest)
I
Hi all,
the recent confusion about what's been released and what hasn't has left
me confused. What are the latest, officially released versions of
automake and autoconf? Can I build automake 1.7.9 (if that's officially
the latest) with autconf 2.57, 2.58 or 2.59 or what
Es schrieb Paul Lew:
>
> > "Ben" == Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> You may want to have a look at my packaging of Autoconf 2.13
> Ben> and Autoconf 2.52 for Debian, which includes an heuristic
> Ben> that automatically picks the right version of Autoconf to run
>
Paul Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Ben" == Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> You may want to have a look at my packaging of Autoconf 2.13
> Ben> and Autoconf 2.52 for Debian, which includes an heuristic
> Ben> that automatically picks the right version of Auto
> "Ben" == Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> You may want to have a look at my packaging of Autoconf 2.13
Ben> and Autoconf 2.52 for Debian, which includes an heuristic
Ben> that automatically picks the right version of Autoconf to run
Ben> in most cases.
Thanks for
> The problem we have is ucd-snmp choked on autoconf 2.52 and forced us
> to roll back to 2.13. With autoconf 2.13 we cannot upgrade the
> automake to 1.6 which requires autoconf 2.52. Can you see the problem
> now?
I often have fun with this kind of incompatibility. I'm no expert, but
I've fou
Paul Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to propose we modify automake (and autoconf) to
> allow multiple versions of automake coexisting on a given
> system. [...]
You may want to have a look at my packaging of Autoconf 2.13 and
Autoconf 2.52 for Debian, which includ
> "Allan" == Allan Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Allan> When you say "libraries", are you referring to
Allan> libXXX.{a,so}, or "The ABC Corp Widget Library" (a
Allan> collection of libraries and non-standard tools)?
Sorry I did not state clearly. I meant libraries used by m
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> I would like to propose we modify automake (and autoconf) to
Paul> allow multiple versions of automake coexisting on a given
Paul> system.
This is a new feature in 1.6. So, it already works.
Paul Lew wrote:
> I would like to propose we modify automake (and autoconf) to allow
> multiple versions of automake coexisting on a given system. In our
> work, we used various open source libraries and each one of them work
> with a particular version of automake. This makes it ha
Sorry if this has been brought up before.
I would like to propose we modify automake (and autoconf) to allow
multiple versions of automake coexisting on a given system. In our
work, we used various open source libraries and each one of them work
with a particular version of automake. This
25 matches
Mail list logo
